A panel of systemic inflammatory response biomarkers for outcome prediction in patients treated with radical cystectomy for urothelial carcinoma.
#uroonc
#utuc
adjuvant chemotherapy
biomarker
bladder cancer
muscle-invasive bladder cancer
non-muscle invasive bladder cancer
systemic therapy
transitional cell carcinoma
Journal
BJU international
ISSN: 1464-410X
Titre abrégé: BJU Int
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100886721
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2022
02 2022
Historique:
revised:
27
01
2021
received:
11
12
2020
accepted:
23
02
2021
pubmed:
3
3
2021
medline:
15
4
2022
entrez:
2
3
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To determine the predictive and prognostic value of a panel of systemic inflammatory response (SIR) biomarkers relative to established clinicopathological variables in order to improve patient selection and facilitate more efficient delivery of peri-operative systemic therapy. The preoperative serum levels of a panel of SIR biomarkers, including albumin-globulin ratio, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, De Ritis ratio, monocyte-lymphocyte ratio and modified Glasgow prognostic score were assessed in 4199 patients treated with radical cystectomy for clinically non-metastatic urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Patients were randomly divided into a training and a testing cohort. A machine-learning-based variable selection approach (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression) was used for the fitting of several multivariable predictive and prognostic models. The outcomes of interest included prediction of upstaging to carcinoma invading bladder muscle (MIBC), lymph node involvement, pT3/4 disease, cancer-specific survival (CSS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). The discriminatory ability of each model was either quantified by area under the receiver-operating curves or by the C-index. After validation and calibration of each model, a nomogram was created and decision-curve analysis was used to evaluate the clinical net benefit. For all outcome variables, at least one SIR biomarker was selected by the machine-learning process to be of high discriminative power during the fitting of the models. In the testing cohort, model performance evaluation for preoperative prediction of lymph node metastasis, ≥pT3 disease and upstaging to MIBC showed a 200-fold bootstrap-corrected area under the curve of 67.3%, 73% and 65.8%, respectively. For postoperative prognosis of CSS and RFS, a 200-fold bootstrap corrected C-index of 73.3% and 72.2%, respectively, was found. However, even the most predictive combinations of SIR biomarkers only marginally increased the discriminative ability of the respective model in comparison to established clinicopathological variables. While our machine-learning approach for fitting of the models with the highest discriminative ability incorporated several previously validated SIR biomarkers, these failed to improve the discriminative ability of the models to a clinically meaningful degree. While the prognostic and predictive value of such cheap and readily available biomarkers warrants further evaluation in the age of immunotherapy, additional novel biomarkers are still needed to improve risk stratification.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33650265
doi: 10.1111/bju.15379
pmc: PMC9291893
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
182-193Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors BJU International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International.
Références
J Stat Softw. 2010;33(1):1-22
pubmed: 20808728
J Clin Oncol. 2006 Aug 20;24(24):3967-72
pubmed: 16864855
BJU Int. 2011 Jul;108(1):24-30
pubmed: 21070579
Eur Urol Focus. 2021 Nov;7(6):1347-1354
pubmed: 32771446
World J Urol. 2016 Feb;34(2):207-13
pubmed: 26198750
Int J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug;25(8):1459-1474
pubmed: 32451768
J Urol. 2006 Oct;176(4 Pt 1):1354-61; discussion 1361-2
pubmed: 16952631
Eur Urol. 2007 Dec;52(6):1601-9
pubmed: 17919807
Eur Urol. 2008 Jul;54(1):41-53
pubmed: 18207314
Eur Urol Focus. 2020 Jan 15;6(1):41-44
pubmed: 31708470
Eur Urol Focus. 2021 Sep;7(5):1067-1074
pubmed: 33020030
J Urol. 2004 Mar;171(3):1122-7
pubmed: 14767284
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014 Jan;40(1):121-7
pubmed: 24140000
Urol Oncol. 2019 Mar;37(3):179.e19-179.e28
pubmed: 30580906
J Urol. 2010 Jan;183(1):68-75
pubmed: 19913255
Hum Pathol. 2006 Dec;37(12):1568-76
pubmed: 16949911
Can Urol Assoc J. 2016 Mar-Apr;10(3-4):E82-6
pubmed: 27330584
Curr Opin Urol. 2020 Nov;30(6):823-831
pubmed: 32881725
Urol Oncol. 2010 Jul-Aug;28(4):389-400
pubmed: 20610277
J Urol. 2010 Jun;183(6):2165-70
pubmed: 20399473
World J Urol. 2018 Feb;36(2):157-170
pubmed: 29147759
World J Urol. 2021 Jun;39(6):1961-1968
pubmed: 32808107
J Surg Oncol. 2017 Mar;115(4):455-461
pubmed: 28105663
Eur Urol. 2012 Apr;61(4):854-5
pubmed: 22226583
Urol Ann. 2011 Sep;3(3):119-26
pubmed: 21976923
Eur Urol. 2006 Nov;50(5):884-6
pubmed: 16973258
Eur J Cancer. 2013 May;49(8):1889-97
pubmed: 23466126
BJU Int. 2011 Mar;107(6):898-904
pubmed: 21244604
Eur Urol. 2012 Apr;61(4):810-7
pubmed: 22277196
Eur Urol. 2006 Dec;50(6):1254-60; discussion 1261-2
pubmed: 16831511
World J Urol. 2021 Jun;39(6):1757-1768
pubmed: 32995918
J Cheminform. 2014 Mar 29;6(1):10
pubmed: 24678909
Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2018 Apr;18(4):347-356
pubmed: 29542328
Clin Cancer Res. 2010 Sep 1;16(17):4461-7
pubmed: 20651056
Eur Urol Focus. 2020 Jul 15;6(4):642-649
pubmed: 31708469
Eur Urol. 2014 Aug;66(2):361-70
pubmed: 24139235
Urol Oncol. 2017 Jul;35(7):457.e15-457.e21
pubmed: 28110856
N Engl J Med. 2003 Aug 28;349(9):859-66
pubmed: 12944571
Eur Urol. 2005 Aug;48(2):202-5; discussion 205-6
pubmed: 15939524
World J Urol. 2019 Jan;37(1):31-40
pubmed: 30259123
Urology. 2003 Jun;61(6):1140-5
pubmed: 12809883
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Jun 1;29(16):2171-7
pubmed: 21502557